Stealth in Combat

[the_redbeard]

Heh. That is a flippant way of raising the valid objection that rulings arising from the RAW on PHB178 might vary from DM to DM. However, they won't vary at my table.

You will know that if you have a power that grants a check, or if you or your allies somehow create a distraction, or if you use Bluff, or if you use Teleport, or if you do pretty much anything reasonable that gets you into cover or concealment in a way that breaks enemy observation of you, then I'll grant you a check.

If you can't be bothered doing any of those things, then no, whining for your mummy won't help you

-vk

The requirement to avoid enemy observation is an invention of yours, not RAW, not RAI. It is a figment of your 3.5 imagination.


Concealment is specifically a condition where you can be observed. Yet it is listed as a requirement for stealth.
If being unobserved was a requirement, why isn't it listed?
Why is concealment listed, but not being unobserved in concealment?

I pointed this out to Xorn earlier and he declined to answer the question:

Find the error in logic in this examination of the requirements for stealth. If you think this interpretation is incorrect, please point out exactly where it breaks for you.

Looking on page 188, I see that there are two conditions to attempt a stealth check:
1. cover/concealment
2. distraction (but NOT concealment - you can do this in broad daylight under their nose)

Distraction is throwing your observer's attention away from you.

Distraction is NOT a requirement for stealthing with cover/concealment.

Ergo: your observer can have his/her attention on you but you can still stealth if you have cover/concealment.

 

[clearstream]

Looking on page 188, I see that there are two conditions to attempt a stealth check:
1. cover/concealment
2. distraction (but NOT concealment - you can do this in broad daylight under their nose)

Ergo: your observer can have his/her attention on you but you can still stealth if you have cover/concealment.

You asked for a logical analysis of your argument. You assert

A is a pre-condition for B

You might then be asserting

If A, then B

Which is not proven by the logic. I will however assume you assert

If A, then possible B!

Fair enough. We know that in fact

If A and D, then B

I'm endeavouring to pin down that D in a consistent, easy to adjudicate way, that is well supported by the body of published material. But let's say we abhor letting our DM make judgements under PHB178. In that case

1. How is U10 Shadow Stride useful?
2. Once enemies are alert, wouldn't it be easier to grant Rogues perpetual CA than roll all those minor action active Perceptions?
3. Why are there 13 other ways to achieve CA, if Stealth alone will do?
4. Why do Rogues have powers that help them get CA, if Stealth alone will do?
5. Isn't it kind of fun for Rogues to have their cunning challenged? Rather than 'Sneak attack!' 'Use Stealth' 'Sneak attack!' 'Use Stealth'...
6. Stealth is cost free. Why doesn't everyone use Stealth all the time, even untrained?
7. Does Stealth only give CA; or does it do other things too? Like defensive advantages superior to those Cover or Concealment usually give?

-vk

 

[Xorn]

The requirement to avoid enemy observation is an invention of yours, not RAW, not RAI. It is a figment of your 3.5 imagination.


Concealment is specifically a condition where you can be observed. Yet it is listed as a requirement for stealth.
If being unobserved was a requirement, why isn't it listed?
Why is concealment listed, but not being unobserved in concealment?

I pointed this out to Xorn earlier and he declined to answer the question:

Find the error in logic in this examination of the requirements for stealth. If you think this interpretation is incorrect, please point out exactly where it breaks for you.

Looking on page 188, I see that there are two conditions to attempt a stealth check:
1. cover/concealment
2. distraction (but NOT concealment - you can do this in broad daylight under their nose)

Distraction is throwing your observer's attention away from you.

Distraction is NOT a requirement for stealthing with cover/concealment.

Ergo: your observer can have his/her attention on you but you can still stealth if you have cover/concealment.

I don't know if you were busy being offended that I didn't say, "Oh my god, you're right!" but what I specifically said that I would not say you're wrong, because I can't. Why don't I point out that no one has addressed anything about the advised tactics for creatures using stealth YET.

How is me bolding "AVOID notice, unheard and unseen" and different than you bolding "avoid notice UNHEARD and UNSEEN"? I read that if you don't AVOID notice, you are not unheard and unseen. I don't read REMOVE notice anywhere. There difference between us is I'm NOT trying to tell you that you're way is wrong. If I wanted to use you're ruling, I could present plenty of arguments to support it--but I can't clearly refute that the way I suggest is wrong.

You seem to think you can, but restating evidence towards your idea over and over and over and over and over. I can't disprove your side, and I'm not trying to. I can make points that support both sides, and I think I can make more points to myself that support my side more than yours. But I still don't think either of us is wrong.

Why does Combat Advantage only direct you to Stealth under "Unaware of you (page 188)" and only direct you to Concealment for "Unable to see the attacker (page 281)"? That is all I need to read to be done with why I'm going with my way.

I can further feel good about myself as a person for choosing my way after seeing that the cause of being unheard and unseen is not being noticed--which in my gut says I'm reading the whole sentence, not getting tunnel vision on what's listed after the cause.

CAUSE (You avoid notice,) --> EFFECT (unheard and hidden from view.)

Page 188 states clearing that I get Combat Advantage from stealth when the target isn't aware of me. (I interpret that to mean the reason they printed that blurb about Combat Advantage there is because that is how they intended for Stealth to grant combat advantage.)

But one more time--I can understand and I can't disprove the logic that you're using. (Nor do I desire to.)

That's how I reached my decision about Stealth, combined with the opinions of my table, on how it should work. I promise you that you can suggest I'm refusing to disprove your logic all you like (and you're correct, though I stated I couldn't more times than I should need to), but you are as important as fly on my window compared to the players at my table.

So the way I want to run things is carved in stone and carried down from the mountain weeks ago--unless I get an email from Mearls today, quoting this post right here, that says, "Sorry J, but camp #1 is correct, and we accidentally messed up the tactics for every encounter we've published."

The CSRs can say whatever they like (which is obvious with the glaring contradictions they have with themselves), and they are just giving us their interpretations of the rules, too.

The moment I read that Combat Advantage indicates you only look at Stealth rules when determining if the target is aware of you, I'm done. If I decided that it did apply, then I would start leaning towards Combat Advantage with just Cover/Concealment = Yes, but I didn't cross that first hurdle.

I feel better about my choice (on a personal level, not because it proves you wrong) because after reading Kobold Hall, Keep on the Shadowfell, Heathen, and Sleeping in the Tomb of Dreams now, they seem to support my ideas of Stealth & Combat Advantage and how they work.

 

[Tonester]

Still?

Xorn:
Pg. 188: "Success: You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view."

Emphasis mine. Why do you always use the "avoid notice" and then conveniently leave the rest off?

The idea of stealth is NOT this complicated, man. In order to create a Stealth Check, you need Cover or Concealment. Once stealthed, a player is unnoticed, unheard, and unseen (i.e. the definition of stealth). Period.

Rogues are meant to have Combat Advantage quite frequently. Rangers and Warlocks quite a bit as well. I.E. Strikers. Many of the rules, mechanics, balance, etc is centered around this philosophy. Why do people insist on making it harder than it is to accept this?

*edit*
Just read some of your other posts. Let me try to explain it this way:

Once a player has:
A) Distracted an enemy
or
B) Has concealment against an enemy
or
C) Has cover against an enemy

THEN that player is NOT in plain site of the enemy. Being a stealthy character, this is all the opening they need in order to do SOMETHING (who cares what... that is fluff) that makes the enemy completely unaware of the character.... unnoticed, unheard, and unseen.

There is low light (concealment). A monster can kind of make out the silhouette of a player. The player makes a stealth check and all of a sudden, the monster no longer sees the silhouette.... not sure if they ever saw them to begin with or not... not sure if it was their imagination or not... not sure if it was shadows, torch flickers or what. Who cares? Its a mechanic.

A player is ducked behind a low wall (cover). They make a stealth check.... maybe they leave a cap resting on the wall which makes the monster think they are still there while their stealth check movement allows them to scurry off to another wall. Since this new wall also provides cover, they are still stealthed at the beginning of their next turn. Again... a mechanic... who cares? That monster no longer knows where the player is... unnoticed, unheard, and unseen.

A player is engaging a monster in combat (plain sight). The player performs a Distract/Bluff check..... the player gets a scared look on its face and looks up like a dragon is approaching the enemy from the rear. The enemy turns around and as doing so, the player performs a stealth check and scurries off. The monster turns around and doesn't see, hear, or know where the player is any longer.... unnoticed, unheard, AND unseen. If the player doesn't scurry off to a place which has cover or concealment, then they will be UNSTEALTHED at the beginning of their turn.

It is all 3. Unnoticed. Unheard. Unseen. It doesn't matter if they noticed them before or not. When a stealth checks passes, they no longer notice them. They no longer see them. They no longer hear them. Why is this so hard to grasp? It is a mechanic.

Don't try to fight the system so much man Its just a mechanic. I agree that WoTC could clarify a couple of things (like the difference between hiding, moving, etc). But just remember that it is supposed to happen pretty frequently.

In fact, the only stealth house rule I like actually HELPS stealth classes. Having a penalty for moving more than 2 squares is dumb, imo, when you are a class that can WALK 7 or 8 squares. Moving more than half your walk speed (rounded down) incurs the stealth penalty. If you have 6 or 7 speed, you can move 3 stealthed without penalty.

 

[clearstream]

In order to create a Stealth Check, you need Cover or Concealment...

and your DM to deem the given situation appropriate.

Rogues are meant to have Combat Advantage quite frequently.

There are 13 other ways to get CA, and these questions about Stealth.

1. Do you want to give stealthers CA. Or do you want to give them remarkable defensive advantages and CA?

2. If you want to give them CA, what's wrong with the 13 other ways of getting it. Nice encounters require strategy and teamwork. 'Sneak attack' 'use Stealth' 'Sneak attack' 'use Stealth' isn't that.

3. If Stealth is enough for continuous CA, why do Rogues need all those powers that give them CA?

4. If a Stealth check should always be granted, ignoring PHB178 RAW, why do Rogues need powers that explicitly grant checks? For that matter, why have rules for Diversions, Distractions, and Total Concealment or Superior Cover? Just assume all player and creatures Skill Focus Stealth. (Exaggerating to make a point.)

5. How many times do you want to roll per round for stealth? One Rogue, once enemies are alert, triggers as many as (3*enemies)+1 checks every turn. At that rate, wouldn't it be more fun to just give the Rogue continuous CA?

6. Since Stealth is cost free, why shouldn't all players and enemies use it whenever they qualify, every round?

-vk

 

[Xorn]

Still?

Xorn:
Pg. 188: "Success: You avoid notice, unheard and hidden from view."

Emphasis mine. Why do you always use the "avoid notice" and then conveniently leave the rest off?

I stopped reading here; I want to see what it's like when you're reading my posts, because you apparently didn't read what I just wrote--seeing as I specifically made this cool little Cause > Effect statement, which included the unheard and hidden from view, and even pointed out that I understand how you're reading it. (That's the opposite of "leaving the rest off", as a sidebar.)

It's pretty apparent to me that you haven't read the tactics I've mentioned repeatedly. If you don't want to read the tactics in every piece of published material there is and see that not one time is there mention of using Stealth the way you're suggesting, but repeated examples of using it the way I have suggested, then there's not much to discuss, because that's my disconnect with your interpretation.

I've given very specific examples, too. In the Heathen adventure (I'm not giving complete details so as to not spoil the encounter for people that don't want to go read it), but how about I say, "Read page 38 of Dungeon 155" and explain to me--why does that creature, with +14 Stealth, not even SUGGEST using Stealth to become unseen, rather than get into Total Concealment?

Now read page 47: You are specifically instructed that the bugbear will use stealth to hide in the smoke, gaining combat advantage--but then absolutely no mention of using stealth thereafter to regain combat advantage without first getting out of sight--why is that?

I've been looking--reading everything I can find on the matter--and I haven't found one single example where a person that has been spotted uses stealth to regain combat advantage. But I have found multiple examples of using Stealth exactly as I'm using it.

Why is that, do you think?

Could it be just coincidence? Sure--but every single tactics section I read makes that possibility feel more and more remote. It seems much more likely to me that Stealth doesn't grant Combat Advantage the way you think it does. But I can't prove that for sure--I can just play the way I see it, supported by a -ton of research on the matter.

I would love to find anything, anywhere, in the published tactics that mentions just one time using stealth the way you indicate. But I haven't, and I don't think it's out there. Plenty of examples for my way though, which is why I'm happy. My interpretation seems to match what was intended, as I encounter it.

 

[AngelBob]

Really, having looked at a the BIG PICTURE of DnD, meaning comparisons to other ways of obtaining CA, published encounters, other powers and abilities from monsters and classes, I am really going with Xorn here.

We can JUST focus in on the rules that concern stealth and concealment/cover, and we can quibble about their combat usage for ever. We can declare how OBVIOUS it is that it works THIS way. But look, OBVIOUSLY it's NOT OBVIOUS, else why would it be such a big topic?

The problem to me, looks like the Stealth rules really don't speak overly much about the difference in how it works "In Combat" to how it works out of it. The rules are PERFECT for how it works out of it, they even make sense for once you are in it, it's the regaining it that seems janky as all heck.

I'm playing it the way Xorn has explained. The abilities and powers support it, the adventures as written support it, other skill usages and the gut feeling of DnD 4th support it. It's only an interpretation of those specific rules that do not. Take a step back, see DnD 4th as a WHOLE, and maybe you'll see what we do.

If you don't, no big, play it your way! Just don't be mad at me for playing it mine.

 

[Klaumbaz]

This thread is devolving into just attacking each other now.

Xorn, The Readbeard, Vonklaude, and others just need to agree to disagree on this untill something VERY official appears.

Someone roll a die, odds you win, even they win, put it aside and wait for an official ruling.

 

[Machus]

I have not been proposing by recording a ruling of 'needing total concealment'.

It is without a doubt, one of your own pre-conditions. It's apparently Xorns only pre-condition. Both are house rules. I'm concerned this being in the 4e rules forum, people will mistakenly believe this is a valid interpretation of the rules.

in order to regain hiding you have to do something other than just [get cover or concealment].

Yes, that's your rule, that is not in the PHB for 4e.
Gaining cover or concealment is the RAW requirement for making a stealth check. As GM, you deny that check on the basis of...your new rule. The GM can be consulted, yes, but if they use a house rule as the basis for the denial, it's still a house rule. A better mechanic is to simply give the player a penalty to stealth checks, when you think it will be harder, as the GM, based on the situation (not on a house rule). For instance, if glass is covering the floor, sure it may be harder to make a stealth check. But that's GM discretion, it's not written. Maybe he has to make an acrobatics roll (to avoid the glass), while also makeing a stealth check. Denying it outright? Not good.

That something is to get into a new position unobserved or find a way to make them think you aren't still where you were.

Precisely. Now read your words. "get into a new position unobserved". Unobserved means you are not seen/heard/noticed. So in effect you are setting the requirement that in order to make this next stealth check, the players must ALREADY be unobserved!

You are requiring them to be not-noticed, to obtain via stealth the status of not-noticed.

Using your example, let's assume the rogue is moving unnoticed to some concealement. Wait, why bother? He is already unnoticed by your admission. He already will then have total concealment and CA if he attacks.

I think this is the house rule you are objecting to. I've also made it clear that a Bluff, or a distraction, would work equally well,

You've only made it clear that there are now three pre-conditions in your house rule:
Player must move to concealment or cover, unobserved OR, in conjunction with a bluff check, OR, after a good distraction.

I don't disagree that this may work for you. If a rogue keeps hiding in the same spot over and over, they may not be quite so surprised when he jumps out for the third time right? But if they are engaged in comabt with other party members, they are probably distracted already....

and elsewhere I posted the example you give using Teleport. Teleport can get you to a position literally unobserved, such as your example of a position behind your enemies, since you do not pass through the intervening squares.

But nothing has changed to the opponnents when he teleported, which is why I used that example.

If the rogue was ALREADY unseen, the opponents COULD NOT be aware of whether or not he teleported. And the fact that he did teleport is then irrelevant. In RAW it makes no difference.

Why would you need Shadow Stride at all, if you can simply move from one hidden position, across clear enemy lines of sight, and into any cover and regain stealth?

SS lets you move while still hidden, without concealment/cover.
This has the following benefits:
1. You will not trigger opportunity attacks as you move past opponents.
2. Your opponents have no in-game knowledge to help drive their search for you. In other words, they are still presuming you may be near your original hiding spot.
Think of sneaking past guards in a lit portion of a hallway. You can do this with SS. You cannot do this otherwise, you are auto-seen.

I think a GM giving penalty to re-hiding in the same spot, in the middle of combat, is probably healthy for everyone, I will probably adopt something similar based on these discussions. But that's dependant on the environment. Flat out denying it is not as healthy IMO. But either way both are GM rulings outside of the 4e rules.

 

[Mistwell]

Page 188. Success: you avoid notice, UNHEARD and hidden from view.

I don't dispute the sound part, I dispute the sneaky = sound part. The term we are looking for is sneaky, not unheard.

Also in the fluff description of the skill:
"slink past guards, slip away without being noticed and sneak up on people without being seen or heard."

Well sure, if the original intent of the skill were to have two aspects, sneaky and hidden, then it makes sense the fluff might mention it in some manner. What I am looking for is an actual rules definition of sneaky. CustServe essentially says "it's a typo", but I am not convinced that's the right answer as opposed to just an easy answer until the original writer gets involved.